The 5DIII required 1/3EV less exposure than 5DII to keep any channel (meaning: green, since that blows first) from blowing out in the brightest patch of the wedge. The D7000 needed 2/3EV less exposure than 5DII (i.e. 1/3EV less exposure than 5DIII) to keep any channel from blowing out.

God pixel peepers are a joke. Ansel Adams surely never questioned this type of crap.

Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better.

He was a total tech head and he spent endless hours in the wet lab.

He was the guy who questioned that sort of stuff MORE than perhaps anyone of his time.

Because about half way down, they take the same shot from the D800/5D3 and 100% crop of the shadows.

The image from the Canon sensor is as noisy as all hell (splotchy? banded?) whereas the Nikon one is noise free. That tells me that Canon still haven't fixed the noise issues that were integral with the 5D2.

All that post did was make me go test my lowly 5D2 the same way, push shadows the same degree, and conclude one of two things:

Either Lightroom totally blows chunks,

OR

FM is not a site I will be visiting again due to lack of credibility.

Sorry, but recovering shadows with Capture One 6 gave me very pleasing results with 5D2 with none of the artifacts I see on the FM post. The D800 is better than what I get from my 5D2, but the difference is nothing even remotely like what is posted on that site.

Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better.

He was a total tech head and he spent endless hours in the wet lab.

He was the guy who questioned that sort of stuff MORE than perhaps anyone of his time.

He was an artist AND a tech head.

That's kinda the point. Tech heads are often poor photographers, and great photographers are often clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of photography. The best photogs are both artists and tech heads like you say, but unfortunately, there seems to be an overwhelming number of tech heads around these parts

Matt, that's very interesting! Do you think DPP is just doing more noise reduction, or perhaps using the top rows of the RAW data to offset vertical banding? Those shadows look much cleaner than what LR is producing, as you yourself have noted.

That's kinda the point. Tech heads are often poor photographers, and great photographers are often clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of photography. The best photogs are both artists and tech heads like you say, but unfortunately, there seems to be an overwhelming number of tech heads around these parts

Uh, no. There is no correlation whatsoever between techiness (or not) and artistry.

Being a tech head and being artistic are in no way connected. You can be one or the other, or both, or neither.

Uh, no. There is no correlation whatsoever between techiness (or not) and artistry.

Being a tech head and being artistic are in no way connected. You can be one or the other, or both, or neither.

+1.

These posts attacking so-called 'tech heads' on a forum topic initially started to discuss the low ISO sensor performance of the 5DIII vs. the D800 baffle me. It's just noise injected into an otherwise intelligent conversation where we're just trying to understand & discuss the magnitude of the differences between these sensors.

Matt, that's very interesting! Do you think DPP is just doing more noise reduction, or perhaps using the top rows of the RAW data to offset vertical banding? Those shadows look much cleaner than what LR is producing, as you yourself have noted.

I haven't even tried DPP yet... perhaps it is time to.

Im no photo-software writer. I got no clue. All I know is Canon probably knows how to handle their own files best and, I am getting much cleaner results using this technique. There is quite a bit of detail there as well. I mean look at the painted over surface of the bricks. You can see all the holes and flaws in the brick quite clearly. Here is a crop of the same area boosted in LR4.1 RC.

Ironic you mention Ansel Adams who was the ultimate pixel peeper of his time and someone who spent countless hours doing special dark room processing and picking the right films and manipulating them in every possible effort to handle dynamic range better.

He was a total tech head and he spent endless hours in the wet lab.

He was the guy who questioned that sort of stuff MORE than perhaps anyone of his time.

He was an artist AND a tech head.

That's kinda the point. Tech heads are often poor photographers, and great photographers are often clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of photography. The best photogs are both artists and tech heads like you say, but unfortunately, there seems to be an overwhelming number of tech heads around these parts

The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.

I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway. I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.

Because about half way down, they take the same shot from the D800/5D3 and 100% crop of the shadows.

The image from the Canon sensor is as noisy as all hell (splotchy? banded?) whereas the Nikon one is noise free. That tells me that Canon still haven't fixed the noise issues that were integral with the 5D2.

All that post did was make me go test my lowly 5D2 the same way, push shadows the same degree, and conclude one of two things:

Either Lightroom totally blows chunks,

OR

FM is not a site I will be visiting again due to lack of credibility.

Sorry, but recovering shadows with Capture One 6 gave me very pleasing results with 5D2 with none of the artifacts I see on the FM post. The D800 is better than what I get from my 5D2, but the difference is nothing even remotely like what is posted on that site.

Well I just tried DPP 3.11.26. Initially I thought the image looked cleaner but that's because it's applying luminance noise reduction which actually makes the image appear softer than in LR. You can get a similar effect in LR by applying luminance NR. The banding is still there in my images, even in DPP. I doubt it's doing any additional intelligent subtraction to get rid of banding (or if it is, LR is doing just as much, since I see pretty equivalent amounts of banding). DPP's sharpening is useless & introduces weird artifacts (puts a weird texture all over the image when raised).

Anyone else want to give this DPP vs. LR comparison a try to see how shadows are handled?

Well I just tried DPP 3.11.26. Initially I thought the image looked cleaner but that's because it's applying luminance noise reduction which actually makes the image appear softer than in LR. You can get a similar effect in LR by applying luminance NR. The banding is still there in my images, even in DPP. I doubt it's doing any additional intelligent subtraction to get rid of banding (or if it is, LR is doing just as much, since I see pretty equivalent amounts of banding). DPP's sharpening is useless & introduces weird artifacts (puts a weird texture all over the image when raised).

Anyone else want to give this DPP vs. LR comparison a try to see how shadows are handled?

The banding is certainly there when really pushed. It just seems much cleaner. I just adjusted the Luminance NR and it does get rid of a lot of that noise. it seems to get rid of some of the banding too which I think is made far more obvious by the presence of noise.

The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.

Never disagreed with you on that, bud Like you said, the best photogs are often great artists and tech heads. However, there are LOTS of tech heads at the professional level who are very tech savvy, yet produce very mediocre images. So when people online start talking a bunch of trash without ever posting portfolios or a single sample image, I get a little suspicious

Quote

I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway.

I take it you know a lot of pro photogs that you rub shoulders with and compete with on a daily basis? Next time you meet one in real life (not online), ask what his or her opinion is on Canon's poor DxO scores and Nikon's superior DR. I'd be surprised if they've ever even heard of DxO's sensor testing. Maybe I just hang out with a dumb group of photogs

Quote

I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.

I beg to differ. If a photog with the chops to take advantage of the D800's DR, like smirkypants, encounters these situations in his own shooting, and uses that DR to improve his images, it's a legitimate issue. On top of that, he's using this DR advantage to generate additional revenue. That's as legit as it gets.

However, if you're some tech head (this isn't directed at you) that posts links to other people's blogs as examples of why you personally need 14 stops of DR, and anything less is unacceptable, you have no credibility. You're basically implying that if you shot in X situation, then you'd need 14 stops of DR, but since you don't here's a link to someone else's blog. This implies that these people are more in love with the idea of having more DR than actually needing more DR in real life shooting scenarios. That's kinda lame, don't you think?

The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.

Never disagreed with you on that, bud Like you said, the best photogs are often great artists and tech heads. However, there are LOTS of tech heads at the professional level who are very tech savvy, yet produce very mediocre images. So when people online start talking a bunch of trash without ever posting portfolios or a single sample image, I get a little suspicious

OTOH I've noted quite a number of galleries belonging to those who most strongly beat down tech heads that have nothing but a few dozen out of focus, weirdly exposed, photos of cats in their backyard.

Quote

Quote

I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway.

I take it you know a lot of pro photogs that you rub shoulders with and compete with on a daily basis? Next time you meet one in real life (not online), ask what his or her opinion is on Canon's poor DxO scores and Nikon's superior DR. I'd be surprised if they've ever even heard of DxO's sensor testing. Maybe I just hang out with a dumb group of photogs

I know a few tech heads who easily out shot quite a few people in the arts/journalism. Of course I know some great shooters in the latter as well. Anyway I just haven't noted that tech heads tend to be worse photographers.

I ran into a Getty shooter in Best Buy who was griping about how awful Nikon sensors were and jealously peeping at my Canon and talking about switching (this was quite a few years ago). He seemed to know all about sensors and their relative performance.

I hung around sports guys more when it came to pros and they were more often talking about AF.

Quote

Quote

I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.

I beg to differ. If a photog with the chops to take advantage of the D800's DR, like smirkypants, encounters these situations in his own shooting, and uses that DR to improve his images, it's a legitimate issue. On top of that, he's using this DR advantage to generate additional revenue. That's as legit as it gets.

However, if you're some tech head (this isn't directed at you) that posts links to other people's blogs as examples of why you personally need 14 stops of DR, and anything less is unacceptable, you have no credibility. You're basically implying that if you shot in X situation, then you'd need 14 stops of DR, but since you don't here's a link to someone else's blog. This implies that these people are more in love with the idea of having more DR than actually needing more DR in real life shooting scenarios. That's kinda lame, don't you think?

[/quote]

I disagree. Even if they don't shoot great art they can still know what they are talking about and they can still notice that certain types of snapshots they take don't work out as well due to say not enough dynamic range etc. and it's 100% transferable to someone who takes shots with greater artistry. I don't think it is lame at all.They could easily think of ways a certain wedding or landscape shot could make use of DR and it could even be from their own practice and it doesn't matter whether they have a great eye for style or not.

You could then turn around and say that someone with a great eye but no tech knowledge shouldn't be allowed to talk about needing dynamic range or not because they don't understand how sensors work or something. That doesn't make sense either.

I disagree. Even if they don't shoot great art they can still know what they are talking about and they can still notice that certain types of snapshots they take don't work out as well due to say not enough dynamic range etc. and it's 100% transferable to someone who takes shots with greater artistry. I don't think it is lame at all.They could easily think of ways a certain wedding or landscape shot could make use of DR and it could even be from their own practice and it doesn't matter whether they have a great eye for style or not.

I'm not so much talking about style as I am technique. Obviously, if you shoot landscapes you're stuck with what light mother nature gives you. The option of pulling shadow detail is great under certain circumstances, but if you have the ability to manipulate the quantity or quality of light, you'll do it every single time instead of cranking up on the shadows slider. Whether you're using something as simple as reflectors or off-camera flash, or something a bit more advanced like monolights, 30-foot softboxes, or gazillion yard long muslins to diffuse natural light, the quality of light often takes precedence over the quantity of light. Why else would high-end commercial photogs - one of the few remaining groups of photogs that are actually wealthy - bother with monolights, 30-foot softboxes, and gazillion yard long muslins?

The D800 is a beast in terms of shadow recovery, but IMHO, while boosting the shadows changes the quantity of light, it does not affect the quality. Shadow light if pretty $hitty stuff, and if you have the luxury and know-how to manipulate your lighting, it yields far greater results than relying on a camera's DR. Technology is great, but technology is no substitute for technique, and those that can combine technology in conjunction with technique are the badass mofos that hacks like me aspire to be someday

Quote

You could then turn around and say that someone with a great eye but no tech knowledge shouldn't be allowed to talk about needing dynamic range or not because they don't understand how sensors work or something. That doesn't make sense either.

This doesn't address your statement directly, but people that naturally have great eyes for composition are awfully tough competition, even if they're clueless when it comes to anything tech related. All the tech stuff can be learned, as can technique, but some people are just born with a natural gift for light and composition that can't be learned. People like me can try as hard as I want, but these folks generally kick my @ss every single time